Dred Scott v Sanford:
Legal Question(s) this case helped answer:
1. Is a slave a citizen and thus able to bring suit in a federal
court?
2. Is a slave who has resided on free soil therefore freed?
3. Did the U. S. Congress have the power to outlaw slavery in
new states or in a territory?
Background/Summary of Court Case:
In 1820 Henry Clay proposed the Missouri Compromise to keep the balance of
free states and slave slaves. Congress admitted Maine to the Union as a free
state, Missouri as a slave state. The territory above the 36 30 parallel would be
free and below slave.
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia . In 1833 Scott was sold
to an army surgeon named Dr. John Emerson. Emerson took
Dred Scott to Illinois (a free state) and then to Wisconsin
(another free state) to work. When Emerson died, Scott sued
for this freedom arguing he had lived in a free state and should
be free. The Dred Scott case made it all
the way to the supreme court.
The Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property not
citizens and did not have the rights. It also declared the
Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional The court said
the federal government does not have the right to ban
slavery in the territories because slaves were property. The North was outraged
over the Dred Scott Case.
The North was upset because the decision had the
potential to legalize slavery throughout the US. Shortly
after the Dred Scott Case, Congress passed the Fugitive
slave law.
Importance of the Case:
The Dred Scott case was a landmark court case that eventually helped lead to the
Civil War. It angered many abolitionists in the North.
The Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property not citizens. Judges concluded
that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional since people have ownership
of their property regardless of the state’s free status.